even if I am one myself. I moseyed over to the Atheist Army, just lookin around at some clubs that might interest me, and I see an agnostic user post something in there about how it's sort of ironic how there's a group of people united on not believing in something. I totally agreed with him, but I was still thinking about joining.

Then they just pounced on him, flaming him to no end, calling him names like "dickwad" and "twat." One person mentioned how "Agnostics who attack atheists and ignore religion are PUSSIES who side with the majority EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE WRONG." Even though the only ones attacking were they. And THEN the guy had the nerve to call the Agnostic a troll!

After checking the topic myself, I found that the Agnostic was an idiot, and when confronted with how faulty his logic was, started saying things like "Oh, I guess you people are too deluded to listen to what I'm saying," while ignoring them. Sure, he wasn't trying to be a troll, but he was being an idiot.

At 12/30/08 03:43 AM, VI-Chuckles-IV wrote:
Still, he didn't deserve to be attacked.

However, instead of being the better man, he attacked back.
I have learned that when random assholes attack you, to just ignore them, unless they are the REALLY angry asshole, then it's fun to poke them with a stick. =D

I'm an athiest, but I really don't mind what people believe. If anything, I respect people's beliefs as they managed to hold onto their beliefs better than me (I was brought up a christian). But I hate it when people critisize people for their beliefs as alot of religion depends on where you were born. Fro example, if you were brought up in Ireland, then you're much more likely to be catholic then if you were brought up in Iran. And yet people still decide that its ok for them to insult and even blame people for their religion.

At 12/30/08 03:43 AM, VI-Chuckles-IV wrote:
Still, he didn't deserve to be attacked.

However, instead of being the better man, he attacked back.
I have learned that when random assholes attack you, to just ignore them, unless they are the REALLY angry asshole, then it's fun to poke them with a stick. =D

True.

I don't know. Maybe I just have a negative bias toward Atheists in general since, whenever we gather into groups to dwell on our godlessness, we tend to act like assholes.

Example:

I don't remember the channel it was on, but it was about three to four years ago. The station had this show called "atheist's hour" which involved these Atheists getting on there and complaining about everything in general. They whined about how "San Fransisco" should be changed to "Mr. Fransisco," as to avoid anything religious. They complained about how the dollar bill had "in god we trust" printed on it. They complained about Christmas. They just complained and complained and complained.

I guess that's why I dislike alot of Atheists.

----------------------------------------
--

At 12/30/08 03:55 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/30/08 03:34 AM, firemaker60 wrote:
Like all groups, even Atheists have their own kind of Extremists.

I have an Atheist friend and he says that he doesn't like to talk about atheism much (not in a positive way anyway) because then it becomes a form of idea-reinforcement. He believes that people go to church to reinforce the irrational beliefs imposed upon them by organized religion. He says that this is done because such beliefs are so disjointed from the real world that it actually needs repetitive reinforcement in order for people to retain faith.

I think my friend is a pretty good atheist because he doesn't want to be convinced that there is no god, in fact, he enjoys talking to Christians who are trying to convert him because he wishes there was a gad, but he strongly believes that there is none.

Personally, I am agnostic because I just don't know and I think proof is an important means of validation. To me, the word 'faith' is a euphemism for 'gullible', and I will not be gullible; I need strong proof in order to fully believe in something.

I must say though, I have taken a liking to Naturalistic Pantheism; although it's more of a philosophical view than a religion, I like the fact that you can prove it logically. Basically, Naturalistic Pantheism takes an alternate view on the definitions of 'god', for example take this definition from dictionary.com:

God is:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe...

Now under Naturalistic Pantheism, we take the view that the universe itself if god because it matches all of the properties of god; the universe is omnipotent (all that can possibly be done, can be done by the universe because the universe embodies all existence and all power that exists), it's omniscient because it embodies all knowledge (for example, all that mankind will ever discover is a discovery made by the universe) we can't discover something unless the universe already knows about it (hence making it exists), now we know that the universe is ruler of itself because the universe embodies everything that exists including itself also, the universe originated itself and keeps recreating itself via the big bang. So yeah, by that interpretation of the literal translation; the universe is god and I've proven that god exists in this way. Although it's a solid case, this theology is merely a play on words; that's why if someone asks me if I believe in god in the traditional (not literal) sense, then I'll say that I'm agnostic.

I'm Atheist and I don't shove my beliefs down anybody's throat unless they try to do the same to me first, and even then only to explain why they don't have a chance at converting me.

Atheist extremists are just as bad as any theist extremists, but that's no reason to group them all in the same category, just like how Christians and Muslims complain about being all grouped together as extremists. Stereotypes just don't work out.

Unless you can actually make them funny and sufficiently offending, rather than just annoying.

At 12/30/08 04:38 AM, Alphabit wrote:
Now under Naturalistic Pantheism, we take the view that the universe itself if god because it matches all of the properties of god; the universe is omnipotent (all that can possibly be done, can be done by the universe because the universe embodies all existence and all power that exists), it's omniscient because it embodies all knowledge (for example, all that mankind will ever discover is a discovery made by the universe) we can't discover something unless the universe already knows about it (hence making it exists), now we know that the universe is ruler of itself because the universe embodies everything that exists including itself also, the universe originated itself and keeps recreating itself via the big bang. So yeah, by that interpretation of the literal translation; the universe is god and I've proven that god exists in this way. Although it's a solid case, this theology is merely a play on words; that's why if someone asks me if I believe in god in the traditional (not literal) sense, then I'll say that I'm agnostic.

Why do we have to add "God" to everything? Every time the human race discovers something, some people just have to attach god to it. It isn't god, it's the universe.

At 12/30/08 03:33 AM, benjadaninja wrote:
Atheists are bullies. Just let people believe in religion if they want!

Yeah, atheist is becoming the word for "Bad god haters"

I may not believe in god but I respect beleivers for their opinion because I know how important god is to them. I find goodness inside myself without god or church though, I don't need a book or anything. But being a god HATER is like plain stupid. Im more like a nuetral unsure guy who leans more to science and its theories.

At 12/30/08 04:57 AM, AnalogStick wrote:
99.99% are idiots who don't even know why they are atheists in the first place and are just atheists because it's a trend. The remaining 0.01% are normal people.